When Snap goes public, some shareholders’ voting rights may disappear

Steven Davidoff Solomon writes for The New York Times, Jan. 24, 2017

Snap is apparently going to make sure that the public has no vote and hence never the opportunity to have a say in the company’s governance. While public shareholders will be totally disenfranchised, Mr. Spiegel and Mr. Murphy are reportedly going to have 70 percent of the total vote despite owning only 40 percent of Snap.

Facebook doesn’t need a chief ethics officer

Kenneth Bamberger and Deirdre Mulligan cited by Slate, Jan. 24, 2017

As professors Kenneth Bamberger and Deirdre Mulligan show in their book Privacy on the Ground. … FTC pressure has been integral to the development of a corporate attitude toward privacy that goes beyond mere compliance with the law and instead actively promotes and protects the interests of consumers. As Bamberger and Mulligan note, the threat of FTC oversight has helped generate “more forward-thinking and dynamic approaches to privacy policies.”

Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist

John Yoo interviewed by WSJ Video: Opinion Journal: Opinion Journal, Jan. 24, 2017

“President Trump seems to be living up to his promise to try to look outside the usual corridors of power. He’s going out to the states to pick well-known figures amongst the judiciary out there, and I think that’s a very healthy sign that he’s trying to expand not just the ideology of the Supreme Court, but expand where people are coming from when they go to the Supreme Court.”

Wombs as crime scenes: What happens when pregnant women lose their civil rights

Jill Adams quoted by Vice, Jan. 23, 2017

“Anna was prosecuted because she sought help and disclosed what happened, and when someone is prosecuted for doing that, that sends a message to other women that medical care won’t be a safe haven for them. We know from history that that kind of dissuasive message has deadly consequences.”

Trump vowed to protect the Constitution–but law scholars say he’s already violating it

Christopher Kutz quoted by Mic, Jan. 20, 2017

They all agreed that the plan is more style than substance, given the fact that Trump will ultimately retain ownership of his company — and even joked that he will fire his sons if they do a bad job. “[The plan] is not meaningful at all,” said University of California at Berkeley School of Law Professor Christopher Kutz.

A lawful president? (Ein rechtmäßiger Präsident?)

Jamie O’Connell quoted by Stuttgarter Nachrichten, Jan. 20, 2017

Nevertheless, Trump is beginning with “more uncertainties and question marks about his presidency than any other president in the recent past,” says US legal scholar Jamie O’Connell of the University of California, Berkeley. His doubts refer to Trump’s violations “of basic norms of democratic coexistence and cooperation,” such as his insulting statements against minorities and the lack of separation between the White House and his company.

State climate policies are boosting San Joaquin Valley’s economy

Ethan Elkind co-writes for The Sacramento Bee, Jan. 20, 2017

This study looked at our state’s carbon cap-and-trade program, renewable energy policy and energy efficiency programs. The data revealed plenty of economic costs, but even greater economic benefits. In total, these key climate policies have boosted the San Joaquin Valley’s economy by more than $13 billion.